The Best General in History

[Mirc]

I'm referring to conversions to Islam not the conquests of the Ottomans whether or not Thelastone36 meant conversion or ottoman conquest is questionable. If the Ottomans conquered Austria they would have most definately pillaged but destroy the nation, no. The problems in todays Balkans are not a result of Ottoman butchery and barbarism but botched politics after the Ottoman retreat and WWI and WWII. Lets not forget Austria was an absolute monarchy and oppressed its serfs. Even if the Ottomans conquered austria they would have been kicked out and a less venomous austria would take hold.

Oh really? The problems in todays Balkans are a DIRECT result of Ottoman conquest. They were the ones who forcefully moved the Serbs from their place and created the mess in Yugoslavia, they are the ones who converted Bosnia and Albania creating two problematic states, and they are the ones who beheaded rules refusing to convert to Islam.

I agree that they would not have destroyed Austria. And I didn't mean to infer that the Ottomans were any more or less brutal than their European neighbors--in fact, the Europeans were probably more brutal. That Islam took root in the Balkans is more due to the fact that the Ottomans were not as religiously authoratative as the Christians.

Really? The Ottomans were much more authoritarian. Rulers of Christian nations like Constantin Brancoveanu are proof of that (his 5 sons were all beheaded in front of him, after each of them refused to convert to Islam, then he was beheaded himself, as he refused and claimed Christ as his saviour, and his head was thrown in the sea). That's just to give an image about how barbaric the Ottomans were. Oh, they are also the ones who burned hundreds of churches in Wallachia to the ground (which is the reason why stone churches appeared here) and forbade painting Christian religious symbols on anything. Sure, how very tolerant of them.

I find it amazing how other Europeans try to convince us that the past was a piece of cake for us and the Christians are the true, complete and only evil of the world.

 

[Verbose]

Really? The Ottomans were much more authoritarian. Rulers of Christian nations like Constantin Brancoveanu are proof of that (his 5 sons were all beheaded in front of him, after each of them refused to convert to Islam, then he was beheaded himself, as he refused and claimed Christ as his saviour, and his head was thrown in the sea). That's just to give an image about how barbaric the Ottomans were. Oh, they are also the ones who burned hundreds of churches in Wallachia to the ground (which is the reason why stone churches appeared here) and forbade painting Christian religious symbols on anything. Sure, how very tolerant of them.

I find it amazing how other Europeans try to convince us that the past was a piece of cake for us and the Christians are the true, complete and only evil of the world.

Not that I dispute that particular piece of history. Nor do I think the Ottomans should somehow be awarded a clean bill on the curelty charge. However...

This is a piece of cruelty against the ruling elite. Why is what befalls that particular segment of society any particular cause for outrage? I'm not saying there might not be, but that it's kind of an incomplete incident, unless it's followed up by supporting information about how the Ottomans ran these conquered lands I think.

And besides, they were royalty in an age where the expectation among people of power and influence involved in high stakes politics was that if you fail, you die. Risk-less authority and leadership is a very modern notion. Kings in those days knew their lives were at stake all the time.
I also doubt king Constantin and his sons found their end too outrageous. Clearly a great misfortune for themselves, and their people, a sad end in all manner of ways, but not a particlarily cruel one.

Because being given a choice and a quick beheading, if you turn it down, by the standards of the time WAS lenient. We're not talking hung, taken down, resiscitated, disemboweled while conscious, to see your innards burned before your eyes, and THEN beheded.

Or dismembering by being pulled apart by four horses. Or simply your average run of the mill having all your limbes broken by the wheel before beheading. Or impaling. All of which western European Christian monarchs were won't to, and definately not just to rival royalty.

Beheading WAS lenient in general. That's why the sword was reserved for nobles and royalty in western Europe as the method of excution. Everybody expected to die more or less at the drop of a hat. The manner of your death was then a closely guarded privilege. If you really wanted to punish a rebel noble, or failed princeling, you hanged them, to add insult to injury. Or you did what Henry the VIII of England would do when in a nasty mood; appoint the newbie exceutioner's apprentice to make the chop, knowing the overwhelming odds of it turning out as a very messy exceution indeed. If the Sultan's executioner dispatched Constantin and his sons in six swift strokes, by the notions of the day, he was at least playing by the rules of decency in these matters.

For barbaric warfare, you could for instance read up on what Swedes and Danes did to each other in their endless 17th c. wars. Those wars were pure hate. If the Swedes found any civilians while invading Danish territory, they unceremoniously hacked their heads off. And vice versa. That's cruel. Do it to a defeated enemy monarch, being given a choice (crappy one but still), maybe not so much.

Or the French 13th c. medieval low intensity feuds between barons being conducted through economic warfare, meaning you catch as many serfs and peasants of the rival's you can, and then you hew off their feet. It usually left them alive, but relatively unproductive so they would form a drain on the local community's resources. That's cruel.

Afaik, similar things are perfectly possible to find in the Ottoman conflict with the various Christian kingdoms of the Balkans. It's just that it's a bit hard to actually prove that the Ottomans were particularily terrible, by comparison. I mean, the French fought a purely internal Christian religious civil war in the 16th c., where the dead counted in the millions, and a lot of them went in very cruel ways. I wouldn't presume the Balkans were necessarly better, but neither that they were worse.

 

[Mirc]

You are right, the times were much more cruel in general. I wouldn't dispute that any time.

As a random piece of information, the impaling that Vlad used was a method copied directly from the Ottomans, as he grew up there as part of the tribute Wallachia was paying to them (traditionally, it was paying tribute in gold, young men aged 4-8 that were staying there up to 15 years and young girls aged 14-19 that were staying there until they either got old or became one of the - sometimes many - wives of a local ).

I know beheading was by far not the worst method of killing, but saying they were tolerant towards people of different beliefs is simply a little bit ignorant, iMO.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Of course it would have been a terrible thing if the Ottomans had captured Vienna and Islam had taken root in central Europe. Interesting how Muslims can talk about the great conquests of Islam rather than what it really was - the brutal invasion and subjugation of Syria, Palestine, Persia, Byzantium, Egypt, Balkans, Russia, Spain, North Africa and India. Hardly suprising they got an equally brutal reply with the Crusades and Reconquista.

Thank any God you like the Ottomans were stopped at Vienna or else Central Europe would have become a misogynist backward society like the rest of the Islamic world is today.

I'm curious why everyone hates Islam so much...

The Muslim conquests of the balkans were terrible but please brutal invasion and subjugation? All those areas did not suffer in anyway like you say except the Balkans. Russia was not invaded by muslims by the way they were mongols and then afterwards they converted to Islam. Look to Genghis who wiped 95% of all people living in Persia, eliminated cities who gave up without a fight, scorched the lands so that for over 1000 years the land would not recover. The Islamic nations today are not backward because of the religion no they are that way because of corrupt governments ill formed after Europe abandoned its colonial possessions. Lets not forget though that conservatism replaced liberalism after the Mongols came through. I can agree that the Ottomans were violent but no more than other European nations. The turks or any other nomad from central asia WERE the most genocidal and violent of anybody.

The arabs were in no way violent as you say. Conversions by the sword are very rare in Islamic history and will only be found in accounts of Muslim "noobs" like the Ottomans or turks in india. Islam grew extremely slow; countries in the middle east did not receive muslim majorities until centuries after conquest especially Morocco which didn't receive one until the 16th century. It was more common in the first surge of conquests to see the arabs preventing people from converting over forcing them. Islam only brought tolerance and learning where it went UNTIL the Mongol period when turks took up the sword. These nomads who came from tribal warmongering societies in central asia thought they would spread there new found religion through the only way they knew how: war. That's why Islam became so damn violent in the balkans or india etc. You also have to understand these turks didn't take Islam seriously they didn't understand it and it was really superficial in many cases.

Other than Byzantine society al-andalus was the greatest civilization in medieval europe. They were the only ones who tolerated others and the library of cordoba had over 500,000 books while the largest in christian europe(st. gall) only had about 30. Al-andalus flowered while europe was mired in the dark ages. The crusades were terrible in that the christians introduced intolerance to the Middle East, they killed everyone in sight including the christians when they raped Jerusalem. Lets not forget the crusaders sacked Constantinople, a city THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING. What about the crusaders in France who killed Jews on the way to the Holy Land? Only then did this malicious war that the crusaders brought did Islamic leaders create the holy war meaning of Jihad when it used to and still means ones own personal struggle over sin. Muslims lived in peace with Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, caliphs like umar prayed in christian churches upon invitations.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Oh really? The problems in todays Balkans are a DIRECT result of Ottoman conquest. They were the ones who forcefully moved the Serbs from their place and created the mess in Yugoslavia, they are the ones who converted Bosnia and Albania creating two problematic states, and they are the ones who beheaded rules refusing to convert to Islam.

Really? The Ottomans were much more authoritarian. Rulers of Christian nations like Constantin Brancoveanu are proof of that (his 5 sons were all beheaded in front of him, after each of them refused to convert to Islam, then he was beheaded himself, as he refused and claimed Christ as his saviour, and his head was thrown in the sea). That's just to give an image about how barbaric the Ottomans were. Oh, they are also the ones who burned hundreds of churches in Wallachia to the ground (which is the reason why stone churches appeared here) and forbade painting Christian religious symbols on anything. Sure, how very tolerant of them.

I find it amazing how other Europeans try to convince us that the past was a piece of cake for us and the Christians are the true, complete and only evil of the world.

You are right, the times were much more cruel in general. I wouldn't dispute that any time.

As a random piece of information, the impaling that Vlad used was a method copied directly from the Ottomans, as he grew up there as part of the tribute Wallachia was paying to them (traditionally, it was paying tribute in gold, young men aged 4-8 that were staying there up to 15 years and young girls aged 14-19 that were staying there until they either got old or became one of the - sometimes many - wives of a local ).

I know beheading was by far not the worst method of killing, but saying they were tolerant towards people of different beliefs is simply a little bit ignorant, iMO.

I don't deny the Ottomans were cruel I just think they were the lesser evil compared to any European nation. The only shocker in the cruel dealings of the Ottomans singly comes from the huge difference in religion. Actually the Ottomans did kill many Shi'ites too in their quest to quell Safavid propaganda in Anatolia.

From my understanding of the problems in the Balkans(at least political) do not originate from the Ottomans as the European nations were the ones who organized the Balkans as the Ottomans retreated and after WWI and WWII. Rightlfully so the Ottomans shouldn't have played a role in that restructuring. I don't doubt that the Ottomans committed many atrocities in the Balkans but they happenned long enough ago that the political turmoil in the Balkans is not a direct result of Ottoman involvement rather ignorant political botchery on the part of the European nations and the US who were after their own self-interests not those of the suffering.

Mirc, I respect you and understand where you are coming from but I advise you to look at the big picture and not just your anger at what the Ottomans did back then and I'll try to do the same.

 

[Rafe Shankar]

got to be sun tzu

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Please do not bump old threads back on the 1st page, unless you have something substantial to add.

Because the original posters are probably gone and the rest of us don't want to go thru old stuff again.

Thank you.